Flint Ironstag:Who would need a union? What could they offer their members? And what could they threaten their members with if they left?

It would depend on the time and the place, and on unions being powerful enough to control the availability of jobs. Bear with me a little, it's not easy to explain without a lot of context. Britain in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s was a very strange place that's hard to picture if you didn't grow up there.

In Britain when Thatcher came to power, the big unions were strong enough to control the supply of labour (sic). For example, if you wanted to work as a miner you had to be a member of the National Union of Miners (NUM). Nearly all the mines were controlled by the government itself (what was called a "nationalized industry"), but even the very few private mines wouldn't hire non-union workers. If anybody did so, the union would go out on strike, not just at that mine but across the industry. The transport unions (who controlled road and rail freight) and the steel workers would come out "in sympathy". Within a couple of weeks, stocks of coal would be exhausted and the country would grind to a halt. This was the chokehold the unions had. Furthermore, the unions at that time were led by a generation of deeply militant leaders (for example, Arthur Scargill) who were so ideologically committed to their beliefs that they were willing to let the country go to ruin rather than concede this control (ask any British person of a certain age about the "three day week"...).

So now imagine that you're a miner. You live in a mining town, where nearly all the jobs -- and certainly all the well-paid jobs -- are down the mine. You're the son and grandson of miners who've lived in the same town for generations. Your only skill is mining. There's no "better paying" mining job because the wages are agreed between British Coal -- the only employer -- and the National Union of Miners -- the only supplier of miners. There's no other job to walk into because all the mines are run by British Coal, not only in your town but in every town. Even if it were possible, it would never occur to you to get a job in a different line of work. You have (or perceive yourself to have) no mobility. We're not talking about people with transferable, white collar skills. From your point of view as a miner, the union owned your ability to work, full employment or not. (And in return, it guaranteed that you got paid, even if the economy was in recession and demand for coal was down and in a normal market-driven economy, employers would be slowing production and laying off workers).

(If you didn't experience it, it's hard to imagine the degree of control that the unions had at the time. The closest American circumstance I can think of is the days when some US unions were controlled by the mob -- except that everything the British unions were doing was completely legal. In many ways it was analogous to the evils of the "company town" in the US -- with the bizarre twist that the exploiter was the Union that supposedly represented the workers, rather than the employer. The Union had in effect become the employer, and power had moved one step along the chain.)

As bizarre as it sounds, this was the reality of Britain from the 1960s into the early 1980s. The big unions really were able to control access to employment so tightly that they didn't have to fear full employment.

For this reason, there is a good case to be made that Thatcher deliberately embraced high unemployment because in those circumstances it weakened the unions. It reduced their membership, and made people more willing to defy the union and take a non-union job because jobs were so hard to come by. Having broken the union's power with the combination of a deep recession, changes to the law, and frankly brutal police action, she was able to return to full employment in pretty much the situation that you described, where full employment no longer handed power to the unions because their monopoly was broken.

So this really is the core of the disagreement about Thatcher's legacy. Did the power of the unions need to be broken? Yes. Did it have to be done at such cost to ordinary workers? I think not, but there's no way to ever know.

And when the economy did pick up speed in the late 80s, it was because of a credit bubble that promptly burst and threw Britain back into recession.

It's said that Thatcher was a tax-cutter. She wasn't. The overall tax burden (all taxes as a percentage of GDP) rose from 39 percent in 1979 to 43 percent in 1989. It's true that Thatcher cut taxes massively for the rich - the top rate of tax was 83 percent when Thatcher came to power, and it was 40 percent when she left. But VAT, which hits the poor harder than the rich, was just 8 percent before Thatcher, and was put up to 15 percent as soon as she gained power.

He does repeat the myth that Margaret Thatcher "declared war on the unions". In the UK in the seventies and early eighties the unions were open about them using their power to bring down governments or force them to do their bidding no matter what the country at large wanted. They declared war first, and openly. Maggie was the first leader to have the balls to stand up to them.She didn't declare war. It was self defence, and the UK benefited hugely from her time.From being totally written off as a country in the seventies to having an economy so strong that when Blair came to power he kept to the spending plans of Major and coasted on the economic success of the Conservatives.

Irving Maimway:I read this yesterday and found it to be the best article on her death thus far. Shocking given that he seems like such a crass jackass whenever you see him.

It's just that: he's not actually that much of a jackass. He's brilliant. He's just chosen a different way to entertain himself (first drugs and sex, then just sex, now apparently a bit of both) that shapes his expression towards the comical instead of straightforward. His success as a writer and comedian - and don't forget how successful his books are - has enabled him to embrace that entertainment without reserve.

Yet he's still brilliant.

Comedians, at their best, are insightful. Sometimes it's situational ("Whats the deal with...") and other times it's just wonderful absurdism ("I know what you're thinking, 'Steve, when do YOU find time to juggle?'") but it's always about seeing something just outside the normal field of view.

czetie:Flint Ironstag: Who would need a union? What could they offer their members? And what could they threaten their members with if they left?

It would depend on the time and the place, and on unions being powerful enough to control the availability of jobs. Bear with me a little, it's not easy to explain without a lot of context. Britain in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s was a very strange place that's hard to picture if you didn't grow up there.

In Britain when Thatcher came to power, the big unions were strong enough to control the supply of labour (sic). For example, if you wanted to work as a miner you had to be a member of the National Union of Miners (NUM). Nearly all the mines were controlled by the government itself (what was called a "nationalized industry"), but even the very few private mines wouldn't hire non-union workers. If anybody did so, the union would go out on strike, not just at that mine but across the industry. The transport unions (who controlled road and rail freight) and the steel workers would come out "in sympathy". Within a couple of weeks, stocks of coal would be exhausted and the country would grind to a halt. This was the chokehold the unions had. Furthermore, the unions at that time were led by a generation of deeply militant leaders (for example, Arthur Scargill) who were so ideologically committed to their beliefs that they were willing to let the country go to ruin rather than concede this control (ask any British person of a certain age about the "three day week"...).

So now imagine that you're a miner. You live in a mining town, where nearly all the jobs -- and certainly all the well-paid jobs -- are down the mine. You're the son and grandson of miners who've lived in the same town for generations. Your only skill is mining. There's no "better paying" mining job because the wages are agreed between British Coal -- the only employer -- and the National Union of Miners -- the only supplier of miners. There's no other job to walk ...

A very good summery

Also the National Union of Miners used strong arm tactics to enforce strikes. This ranged from shunning people who crossed picket lines, forcing others to shun those who crossed pickets, blocking anyone from entering or anything leaving mines being picketed, trying to disrupt businesses who took shipments of coal from mines on strike, threats of violence, vadalism of homes of people crossing picket lines and actual violence against those who crossed picket lines.

The National Union of Miners was not an inocent actor in the strikes nor did its members have much ability to change the leadership as the voting was as free and fair as the voting in the USSR.

Perhaps the most insightful part of the article "I know from my own indulgence in selfish behaviour that it's much easier to get what you want if you remove from consideration the effect your actions will have on others."

Unfettered union power, like unfettered capitolism, is where the thugishness comes from.

We're seeing the latter currently in the US.

Was Thatcher correct in standing up to the unions the way she did? Yes and no. Yes, in standing up to the unions, but that doesn't mean that all the methods she used were sound.

Nor were all her other methods of dealing with groups she was opposed to all that spectacular.

Yes, it gave her a legacy, but it's not the kind of legacy that successors would want to be associated with, at least not and have a chance of success. In much the same way that Republicans in the US don't strongly reference the policies of Bush II; they have to go back to Reagan for "good feelings / buy-in".

Also, somebody is going to have to explain to me how full employment is bad for union power?

If unemployment is near-zero, the job applicants have some leverage as the employers will probably have difficulty filling open positions (since almost everyone will already be employed elsewhere). Applicants can then negotiate better deals and as a result have much less use for a union.

If unemployment is high, the employers hold the upper hand and can be very selective and force lower salaries. The union, through the leverage of collective bargaining, can still negotiate higher salaries with the employers when individuals cannot.

When unemployment is high people tend to seek union jobs because of this, and also because of the damn-near-impossible-to-get-fired nature of a union job.

Flint Ironstag:He does repeat the myth that Margaret Thatcher "declared war on the unions". In the UK in the seventies and early eighties the unions were open about them using their power to bring down governments or force them to do their bidding no matter what the country at large wanted. They declared war first, and openly. Maggie was the first leader to have the balls to stand up to them.She didn't declare war. It was self defence, and the UK benefited hugely from her time.From being totally written off as a country in the seventies to having an economy so strong that when Blair came to power he kept to the spending plans of Major and coasted on the economic success of the Conservatives.

This

When she took office unemployment was 17%. When she left office 5%. This pissed off the Unions.